CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17795/15 Polizena CONEVA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 31 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant purchased immovable property in the bankruptcy proceedings paying EUR   175,000. The proceedings were led by an insolvency trustee appointed and supervised by the Štip Court of First Instance. After the purchase was completed and the applicant had paid the price a third party lodged a claim against her seeking to establish the property title over the same immovable property. This claim was upheld by a final decision of the Supreme Court finding that the property had been erroneously considered to be part of the debtor’s assets in the aforementioned bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant then lodged a claim against the State seeking to reclaim the amount that she had paid. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the relevant courts in the bankruptcy proceedings had acted in accordance with the domestic law and therefore there was no responsibility on the part of the State for the damage suffered by the applicant. The applicant complains that she suffered damage as a consequence of errors by the relevant domestic courts in that she was left without the property title over immovable property, which she had duly bought and paid in the bankruptcy proceedings.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? Did such interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for instance, Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy [GC], no.   22774/93, §   49, ECHR   1999 ‑ V)?